Tuesday, August 02, 2011

sustainability excludes growth...,

ecoglobe | "Sustainability" is a state of societal organisation that can be maintained unchanged for a very long time, thousands of years.

This working definition differs from soft definitions of Sustainable Development, such as "forms of progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs" in line with the Brundtland report of 1982.

Sustainability excludes growth. Any development that entails growth is not sustainable, cannot be carried on for a long time. Humanity has lived sustainably for some 200000 years till the invention of agriculture, i.e. for 8000 generations.

Modernity started with the invention of the steam engine, leading to modern technology, allowing population to grown tenfold in only 12 generations of 25 years each. Humanity has now overshot the planet's carrying capacity by far, one can arguably say some 400 times overshoot: population 10 times, GDP per capita 40 times, since 1712.

All development means physical growth and thus an increase in the use of renewable and non-renewable resources. Non-material growths are fictions only, including the acclaimed transition to a services society. Many services are very resource intensive. At the end of the day growth is counted in GDP figures, which represent material resources.

No argument can justify further expansion (GDP and population growth) on a planet that is already hugely overloaded by hyperactive people. Environmental scientists as well as the media are reporting year after year on the increasing depletion and destruction of our habitats, nature, and resources. There is no need to get into details. We all know.

The acclaimed need of the poor countries to develop must be put within the environmental boundaries of resource availabilities and damage done to the lands.

Given the undeniable facts that humanity's burden on the planet is far too high, any development in poorer areas (NOT countries!) must be offset by contraction and frugalisation in the overdeveloped areas.

It goes without saying that growth is a suicidal policy for humanity on a planet that is not flat and not limitless. No Hope, nor Optimism nor Technology can counter these facts. Technology will not be able to revive extinct species, restore deforested areas, replenish spent aquifers, repair a spoiled climate, clean chemically polluted environments, or replenish depleted resource stocks, and so on and so forth.

A World Trade Organisation that works to increase trade and to maintain economic growth, but without considering these environmental facts and trends, has no future at all. Its old buildings on Geneva's lakeside and the extension under construction in the same public park will become void and useless when resource scarcities start to bite in the overdeveloped world as well. This time is not far off.

We are at peak oil, since 2003, as the International Energy Agency finally admitted, in their 2010 World Energy Outlook.
(Cf. http://www.ecoglobe.ch/energy/e/outl0n09.htm ).

Since there is no equivalent replacement for fossil fuels, not in quantity and not in quality, the post peak oil era, probably starting within the next few years, will lead to a decline in agricultural and industrial production, as well as the rolling back of globalistation.

Renewable energies are mainly electricity, all subsidized by fossil fuel for the generation plant, equipment, infrastructure, and human labour. We cannot eat electricity, nor use it as raw material for a host of modern products and fertilisers.

Even IF we had alternative energies, this would only confirm the false believes that we could continue our exuberant lifestyles and depletion of the world. The UNEP's "Green Economy", the WBCSD's "Vision 2050", The Swiss "CleanTech" so-called "Master Plan", and many more projects are all based on the belief in HOT, especially Technology, to save our modern souls. This HOT world cannot survive, because of physical resource realities.

The post peak oil era will entail a decline of the usefulness of the WTO for Business As Usual, i.e. furthering growth, because the physical resources will be lacking. The trade functionaries will be repatriated on the last flights that are then still possible with some remaining kerosene. Mr Pascal Lamy will be forced to retire in France. Geneva will have to try and survive with locally grown potatoes and heat its homes - with what exactly?

Remember that HOT - Hope Optimism Technology - cannot change physical facts and that we can only work with the ideas and techniques to live, with the means that we do have now. Tomorrow can not feed us today.
So, rather than worry about DOHA, BAU, and our jobs in whatever organisation, we should think of the effect of our work on the immediate future of our family, our children who have their eyes scared of environmental destruction.
Compare the eyes painted by a child, taken from a UNEP brochure.

These eyes of our own children should help us sit back, think for a while, and to refocus on those things that matter most to us.

12 comments:

nanakwame said...

Good articles:
The Need to Challenge Conventional Economic Wisdom:

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=9221
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=9222
 

umbrarchist said...

GDP is not a measure of Growth of WEALTH it is a measure of Growth of CASH FLOW.

By ignoring the DEPRECIATION of Durable Consumer Goods it ignores LOSS OF WEALTH.  But the replacement of the JUNK creates CASH FLOW.  So Planned Obsolescence is good for CASH FLOW and bad for true growth but gets called Economic Growth.

European Culture runs on lies.  The masses must be properly mis-educated to not figure out the lies.

http://www.toxicdrums.com/economic-wargames-by-dal-timgar.html

CNu said...

Time for your recommended daily allowance of hypertiger wisdoms; http://hypertiger.blogspot.com/2011/06/just-because-its-legal-doesnt-mean-its.html

nanakwame said...

Everything the top has comes from the bottom.
Yes such brillance

Folks can wise up now and get with the program, or, wise up later when there's a gigantic foot up their backsides or after it's too late for any remediation to take place and the die-off has begun in earnest.
cnulan | Homepage | 07.09.08 - 6:47 pm |
Oh yes we pushed back the time, but you got me thinking a bit more about some things.
Love U thought, there is always gems of truths in narratives, unless you quite mad. Thank g_d for knowing some brillant folks by their clear views on science
Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve. Karl Popper

Big Don said...

No such thing as true sustainability, it's all going to run down to neutral equilibrium at some point anyway, no matter what you do. Entropy will maximize [Second Law of Thermodynamics].  So what's wrong with "getting yours" while you have the chance...??

CNu said...

As the great Fr. John Romanides would have put it, "it's a sin", a satanic, irresponsible, unethical, and unevolved behavior. Rational capitalism, as mentioned by Hypertiger, is the solution - what you're advocating for is manmade hell on earth with a scientific theory as rationalization. (you are consistent...,) 

Big Don said...

The stronger and more powerful have always preyed on the weaker, from the earliest African tribes to the banksters of today.  It's human nature and you cannot change that.  It's a jungle out there, always has been, always will be.  Nice guys finish last...

John Kurman said...

There is no law. It's a stochastic equation going back to Boltzmann. Educate yourself.
Entropy tends to maximize, but there is nothing stopping it from going anentropic. It's a matter of probability and statistics.

...geez, now I see why Nulan keeps you around for comic relief...

Tom said...

Popper had some solid stuff.  So many other philosophers of science have potatoes growing in their heads.

Big Don said...

Don't think you'd wanna bet your sustainability on a zillion-to-1 shot, which is what your argument amounts to... 

umbrarchist said...

The Light Bulb Conspiracy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5DCwN28y8o
.
 

nanakwame said...

When hearing the word  Rational Capitalism it makes me cringe. These are terms used during WW II debackles. The only thing rational we building is robotics. There is another kook who drops e-mails on me who stop by here, yet he talks about
http://www.condition.org/econpol3.htm#(d) 'Dirigiste Heurism'
You know what we tend to lean towards has an element of personal mood and personality. I find this to be so true proven bymy own children. Plus I reading this excellant debate about etymology and the articulations of the words by poets, writers, etc, that is good

When Zakharova Talks Men Of Culture Listen...,

mid.ru  |   White House spokesman John Kirby’s statement, made in Washington shortly after the attack, raised eyebrows even at home, not ...